Appeal 2007-4313
Application 10/286,172
Lowenheim as authorities in small-piece electroplating, but rather as
evidence of what is generally known in the electrochemical arts.
Those skilled in the general electrochemical arts would have
appreciated that a larger cathode surface exposed to the solution would
increase the rate of electrochemical changes. Those in the electroplating art
would have appreciated that greater cathode surface area would relate to the
plating rate.
Murata argues that the problem it is solving is different than the one
addressed by increasing current. A larger cathode surface solves more than
one problem. It does not matter which problem leads to the adoption of the
grooved cathode since doing so solves both problems. A nice side benefit of
adopting a grooved cathode would be that it would incidentally increase the
cathode area available for contact with, and the agitation of, the small pieces
in the solution.
Finally, while Murata correctly notes that the grooves in Oesterle's
vertical cathode are vertically oriented in the side faces of the cathode.
From this Murata argues that moving the grooves to the upper surface of
Oesterle's cathode would make no sense. We agree, but the argument
misapprehends the rejection and underestimates the skill in the art. The
rejection proceeds from the premise that the reason for putting grooves into
the cathode involves increasing cathode surface in contact with the solution.
The cathode in the admitted prior art that is being improved contacts the
solution on its upper surface. Thus, to apply the teachings of the prior art to
the admitted prior art, those in the art would modify the upper surface of the
admitted prior art cathode to increase its contact with the solution.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013